Thx for that. I think I saw a picture of your bike setup elsewhere, from Paul- I'm riding up to BC with him and others next week. I've used the micatechs to date, but want less weight, bulk, and width. My first time with the GL. Your setup looks good but seems like it might feel too snug over the long haul, no belly on me. I'm considering turning the rotopax 90 degrees and trying to place the GL on top, but am a bit concerned with it sticking out the back beyond the moto overland plate. Thoughts on that?

Thx for that. I think I saw a picture of your bike setup elsewhere, from Paul- I'm riding up to BC with him and others next week. I've used the micatechs to date, but want less weight, bulk, and width. My first time with the GL. Your setup looks good but seems like it might feel too snug over the long haul, no belly on me. I'm considering turning the rotopax 90 degrees and trying to place the GL on top, but am a bit concerned with it sticking out the back beyond the moto overland plate. Thoughts on that?

Hey poonbean,

I just bumped into this checking out people's Rotopax setups.

I wouldn't worry about the Rotopax hanging a bit off the back of the Moto Overland Top Rack but you don't want to load up that overhang (which you don't want to do anyhow). However the width of the 2 gal. Rotopax will be difficult for the Great Basin to fit over well. It's more designed for the shape and taper of a seat so the wide box shape of the 2 gal. may not jive too well.

If you are worried about rider space with the GB run a little less on the top of the bag and use the triple compression straps to pull it all back and down giving you a little more space. The cut outs on our Top Racks should give you good positioning/tightening. Then maybe run a small dry bag on top of the Rotopax to give back the space.

Dave, yes that helps. Is your suggestion with the rotopax mounted "normally" or rotated? Either way the rotopax blocks access to the cutouts. Of course, I could put the GB on first. Maybe just drilling two rotopax mounting holes a half inch to inch so more towards the rear would the allow this all to fit more comfortably.

Dave, yes that helps. Is your suggestion with the rotopax mounted "normally" or rotated? Either way the rotopax blocks access to the cutouts. Of course, I could put the GB on first. Maybe just drilling two rotopax mounting holes a half inch to inch so more towards the rear would the allow this all to fit more comfortably.

Thanks.
Steve

Hey Steve,

I'm saying normally. The other way is just too wide for the GL Great Basin to fit over properly.
There is already one hole 1" farther back. You could enlarge that one a bit and add a second one. Don't go any farther back than that though!

Yes the 2gal does take up a lot of space and pretty much blocks everything.

If you don't already have your 2gal. don't forget they have that new 1.75 gal size too. On that one I'd say if you rotate it and you'll gain 3/4" too.

We are looking at adding rotating mounting in the future too. Partly for the 1gal. to fit under a Great Basin and another secret reason ...

Thanks again Dave. Not to belabor this, but I should have been more clear in defining "normal." I think your response "The other way is just too wide for the GL Great Basin to fit over properly" may have this backwards.

The slot in all the rotopax containers is oriented parallel to the short dimension (13.25" width), and your rack's holes for the rotopax mount is oriented in line with the bike (front to back). As a result, mounting the rotopax on your rack results in the rotopax longer dimension (17.75" length) going side to side (all tough to put into words). Any ways, I'll call that the normal mount, because I don't drill any new holes.

So, I see 2 options:

1: Keep the normal orientation and drill the holes as you suggest - which should allow the GB to move another inch or so towards the back. You are right, with the 17.75" length of the rotopax oriented side to side on the bike, it's too wide for the GB to straddle.

2: Reorient the mount by 90 degrees so the 17.75" rotopax dimension rides front to back, and allow the GB to sit on top of the rotopax straddling its 13.25" width, would move the GB much further back.

I was referring to the "normal" position as the stock one we have. Otherwise known as #1.

#2 is as vonotto has done. It will work. I was concerned that there may be a bit of bunching because it is designed to curve over the seat but I don't think it's enough to create any issue. The section of the bag that sits over the seat is 13.5" at the front and 14.5" at the back at the widest "bend point". It will fit over the Rotopax 13.25" width as of course vonotto shows. It's a soft bag so it will do whatever you make it do. It's all a little taller that way but probably no big deal.

After all that the 1.75 gal. doesn't really work better unless you mount it so it is wide at the sides (option #1) but then you may still want it farther back since it's actually 13.5" instead of 13.25". You would have less overhang off the back of the bike though and lose 1/4 gal. (and gain the afterburner? ).

So I pretty much didn't help, only confuse it all and consented drilling away on the Moto Overland Top Rack

Once you have all the pieces in hand I'm sure it will come together well.

Used some 1/8" stainless and had it rolled with a 3/4" radius to hang over my TT pannier racks. Secured on the bottom with insulated p-clamps. Turned out okay. Really happy to leave the nagging fuel worry issue behind.

__________________'12 990 ADV: The Orange Barchetta______________________________It's not about logic. The great thing about being a man is that it doesn't have to make sense.

Used some 1/8" stainless and had it rolled with a 3/4" radius to hang over my TT pannier racks. Secured on the bottom with insulated p-clamps. Turned out okay. Really happy to leave the nagging fuel worry issue behind.

Following the suggestion of toowheels, I went ahead with option 1 and enlarged the existing hole and drilled a new hole. The rotopax is no about an inch further back, which helps a lot, another inch would even better (as always!). Below are pictures.

The question now is whether or not the new hole is too close to the logo M cutout...creating a weak point subject to fatigue failure ??? . There are fender washers underneath to spread the load a bit.

Following the suggestion of toowheels, I went ahead with option 1 and enlarged the existing hole and drilled a new hole. The rotopax is no about an inch further back, which helps a lot, another inch would even better (as always!). Below are pictures.

The question now is whether or not the new hole is too close to the logo M cutout...creating a weak point subject to fatigue failure ??? . There are fender washers underneath to spread the load a bit.

Well, I can't figure out how to insert pics yet, lame. Here are the URLs